mikeb30165

Bully for you. IRL, no astronaut flies by the seat of his pants. His arse would burn on re-entry

Mechjeb. IMHO, using MJ is most definately NOT cheating, and, I respectfully suggest, those who look down on those who use it, get to know the thing first, before thinking of it as a "cheat" and - by association - users of it as "cheats" . Here's why I think why... 1. This mod (like many others) provides basic functionality that should have been built-in to the stock-game, as soon as interplanetary travel was implimented. Indeed, Squad themselves, have been planning to add MJ-type functions for some time now (it already has been partly - hence those nifty little buttons by the navball, that offer kimited SMARTASS functionality) . 2. MJ by no means, provides "The Easy Option" as it raises it's own challenges; this is because you can still fail VERY spectacularly with it, even if it predicts things accurately and "behaves itself". Moreover, as you need to understand what you are doing before you can use it properly, it actively, enhances your skill's not bypasses your shortcomings. 3. MJ (and KER) allows you to approach your designs more realistically and build much more efficient hardware (just like a true-life engineer); it allows you to make intelligent design decisions based upon TWR/Delta-v calculations etc, and so, takes an awful lot of the "sillyness" out of the design-process, (guess-work, erronous assumptions, bad-design etc). Granted you could use a spreadsheet for Dv calculations or take a stab at TWR in your head, but best of luck if your figuring these out accurately for a 23-stage Eve lander. Thinking about it, isn't using spreasheets or online data sheets a form of cheating, as some have implied in the past? 4. It's educational. I didn't know the first thing about Dv - now I do, because of MJ. Surely, dicovering what all those mysterious figures mean when you right-click an engine, through, actually, being able to to use them, is a good thing? Which begs the question, why are things like, ISP, thrust etc published, anyway, if they aren't meant intended for a mod like KER or MJ? 5. It allows you to fly more realistically, baring in mind auto-pilot's have been around since the 1930s! Moreover, it takes-out an awful lot of unecessary (and boring) faffing-about, regarding node set-up, transfers etc; and removes (or reduces) piloting inconsistancies during flight-test. Still not-convinced? Well, let me put it this way: do you honestly think Nasa or the Russian Space Agency throw up billion-dollar probes, and risk people's lives, by building rockets based on "personal experiance", hunches or because something simply looks "coooool"? Or trust someone to fly a Soyuz properly while poking at the capsule's instrument panel with a stick, as his face is being pulled-off during a 6G ascent? Er, nope. Even "back in the day", Nasa fired up their mighty tube-powered IBM 1701's and the russians their massive Ural II's, dug out thier slide-rules and figured it out. All of it. Before they even considered building a prototype. With regards to flying, even Gagarin's Vostock (apologies for the spelling), back in '61, was controlled entirely from the ground. in 65', Gemini was designed with a primative on-board computer that did a lot of the piloting. Although Armstrong "took over" the landing of the LEM, the rest of the Apollo mission was almost completely computer controlled, partly through the onboard guidance computer, and partly from ground uplink. There's a good reason why, for years, test-pilot's referred to Astronauts as "Spam in a Can". - BUT, HERE'S THE REAL POINT... Regardless of all the above waffle, this whole topic is a bit daft, anyway. it all comes down to what turns you on about the game, as to whether you consider MJ (or any mod for that matter) to be cheating or not. Afterall, Squad intended mods to be used right from the start. I use MJ 'cos, what blow's-my-hair-back/spin's-my-wheel's, is the science behind it all and the design process; I strive to make the most efficient thing possible, do the most challenging, 'puter breaking thing imaginable and go beyond what simple guess-work and my fists of ham are able to do. Although I'm a good-ish pilot, and I like doing the odd S**ts & Giggles thing, too, I'd much rather spend my time building something better than I've done before, or establishing a better way to do things (like ascent /flight profiles etc) and generally, getting "better" at the game, on my own terms. MJ allows me to do this as the only mod I use. Others are more into the bare-chested aspects of the game. That's up to them, and, as there are no fixed rules to KSP (only goals), they have the right to play the game any damn way they please - and so do those who use MJ. And, just like me (or me or anyone else for that matter), they shouldn't look down thier noses at anyone else who doesn't play the game their way. So, let's forget all this MJ nonsence and agree to disagree shall we?

Just a quick desireable - dragless struts (if they are massless, why do they have drag?). Pain in the neck, as they are sorely need for Mk3 parts (even after the toughening up in 1.04) and rob a lot of Dv for spaceplanes when fitted.

Easy. Struts. Don't use too many though 'cos they cause drag, even placed inside the bay.

In a nutshell, switch-off gimballing, stiffen up your design and move the SAS as close to the CG as possible. By moving the SAS closer to the CG you're minimising bending movements, and to stiffen, try strutting between the stages and (this might sound daft) strut the SAS unit/s to the rockets; I've noticed the joints between the units and the rest of the ship get a little bendy on big ships (especially if placed at the ends), causing oscillations that the SAS's overcompensate for, further exacerbating the problem. Also, your design uses the big Rhino engine, which is massively over gimballed (IMHO), so switch the gimbals off on it (as others have suggested). Just my tuppence worth, & hope it helps..

Totally agree - the defenders are converts: newbies need to be converted. Put it this way: we know its a great game 'cos we took a punt on it when it was cheap, so forgave its "quirks". Later, we really got ito it & now its an addiction (well, it is for me). But, $40 for a comparatively unknown indie game is a big ask for a newbie, & it looks overpriced (especially when you consider its far from the "finished article").

Yes it's overpriced, & I'm saying that as a hardcore addict who's been playing KSP since 18.3. If anything, the game (stock or otherwise) feels even more unbalanced & "rough around the edges" than it did back in 0.90 (even some old, annoying bugs are re-appearing - like the dreaded radial symmetry bug that I thought had been ironed out in 0.25!). Surely a new purchaser (which is what Squad needs a lot of to keep the game viable), would expect something at least a little more "polished" than it is at the moment for their precious 40 bucks, especially when you consider Unity 5 is on the horizon? The game is bound to be even more buggier when it moves over to '5 initially and it certainly will be very, very different (and not necessarily better - all those broken mods/ balance issues!). And another thing; when is the demo going to be updated? Now it is no longer early access, this is about the only thing to tempt a wary newbie into a purchase; at the moment the demo does the game no justice at all and is very unrepresentative of the current version.

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/0/08/Standard_Nosecone.png/60px-Standard_Nosecone.png Small Nose Cone Frontal Area: 0.3032565 Drag Coefficient: 0.401173 Small Nosecone is attached to aft connection point of RAPIER engine http://i.imgur.com/niAAXw6.jpg Firing the engines up. Nosecone does not overheat and does not obstruct thrust from the engine. http://i.imgur.com/hRV80Vw.jpg RAPIER with rear nosecone has a performance increase over the other with no rear nosecone. http://i.imgur.com/gP4TuXX.jpg Conclusion: Rear nosecones help improve aerodynamic performance by reducing rear drag. Nosecones are recommended for all exposed rear ends of aircraft. (Especially for those with exposed attachment points.) http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/2/24/Shock_Cone_Intake.png/59px-Shock_Cone_Intake.png Shock Cone intake Frontal Area: 1.213026 Drag Coefficient: 0.3 VS. http://i.imgur.com/rE6Q4ths.pngAdvanced Nose Cone - Type A Frontal Area: 1.213026 Drag Coefficient: 0.3476872 //Has 0.0476872 more drag than Shock Cone Intake. Left is the Shock Cone, right is the Type A http://i.imgur.com/KGeM7YZ.jpg Spooling up engines for launch http://i.imgur.com/63gwRv5.jpg Shock Cone beats the Type A by a mile. http://i.imgur.com/NWKrZIY.jpg Conclusion: Other tests not shown, but have been tested with other nosecones. Tested against Aerodynamic Nosecone, Advanced Nosecone - Type B, Tail Connectors Type A/B and various other intakes. The Shock Cone outperforms all other nosecones, outcome is the same being opened or closed to collecting air. Shock Cones are recommended for all leading edges of SSTOs, planes and rockets to minimize drag as much as possible regardless of air breathing engine use. I've compiled all the knowledge I've gained from extensive testing of the aerodynamics systems to come up with a mere 16-tonne SSTM (Single Stage to Mun) craft that carries 4 Kerbals. It's from the knowledge to reduce struts to avoid drag, shock nose cones being the very best nose cone to reduce drag (it has the lowest drag coefficient of any nose cone and also has the lowest weight), smaller cones on the RAPIER engines to which I will trademark with the name RAPIERSPIKE engine. Over 1000m dV at a 76km orbit. Shock Cones are used to reduce drag an all leading edges of the craft. Minimal strut usage; Only 3 struts in total holding craft together. Craft is deliberately made with little to no clipping to demonstrate proof of concept of cumulative drag reduction techniques. The craft runs on only liquid fuel, 2 RAPIER engines and a NERVA engine. http://i.imgur.com/6jog30K.png Demonstrating the RAPIERSPIKE engines which has significantly reduced drag compared to naked RAPIERs. http://i.imgur.com/WJ7TXry.jpg Craft File: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=01081702413893749625 Bloody 'ell! Definately going to try out your RAPIERSPIKE's, Levelord - great work mate!

Odd? I tried voting in the poll & its saying I already voted!

- - - Updated - - - The KER result is because the Nukes only need Liquid fuel now; the Oxidiser is just dead-weight.- - - Updated - - - Wing sections to keep Nervs from overheating? Since 1.02 rebalanced thier heat production, I've not had to use that trick - even for long Jool burns. The biggest irritation with the Nervs is lack of choice regarding liquid-fuel only tanks, but apart from that (IMHO) they are still the natural choice for inter-planetary missions.

Totally agree - one of my favs and waaay ahead of its time (it first flew in 1955!)

Saab Draken?

"fullConvectionAreaMin = 0.2": is this a bug that needs fixing or just a hack / workaround?

Totally agree with Garth Gerbal, but for one odd thing: I discovered (by accident) that by holding 5 degrees while firing in closed-cycle mode from 29K onwards - not pulling-up to reach apoapsis ASAP - I got about 100 more delta-v into orbit. (at 29K, Rapiers auto-switch modes when using the new-shaped ram-inlets). Total speed would be about 2150K, dribbling off to 2050 by the time 70km was reached, leaving a circization burn of just 350K. According to mechjeb, total Dv used was about 4200 which is good for a space plane. Not sure why this happens, but noticed the same behaviour, many times with other planes & also when when flying rockets. My guess is (probably wrong!) that the atmosphere is thinner then it used to be from 30K onwards so drag-losses while coasting are lower. Add in other factors like that the Rapier's ISP just about max's out from 30K, circulisation is closer to the ground, steering losses are lower, your nose is deviated less rom the petrograde during the early part of the coasting etc and you seem get a little more left in the tanks after ascent. (anyone else had this experience?). To help with the original question, give yourself plenty of power (TWR of 1.3/1+ at sea-level, 4/1+ at 30K) and only put on as few wings/control surfaces as you can getaway with on your plane; the emulated trans-sonic drag, is very, very heavy and can stop an underpowered plane dead in its tracks at mach 0.99. Hope this helps.. (Quick update: just seen Cybersol's suggestions: this is basically what I do too. works a treat!)

Both trains are works of art IMHO. Very, very cool.

Cheers guys for the help, much appreciated - FYI, its a spaceplane (SSTO) not a rocket. Think I might go for the Joint Reinforcement Mod, 'cos the Mk3 parts seem really flimsy, as StarHawk mentioned. Moreover, at 850 parts lag is becoming a real issue (struts are one of the biggest culprits here), so i'm loathed to put to any more on. Feel a bit of a failureusing mods though (I only use Mechjeb). I did an earlier 180 seater BTW using 11 Mk3 parts (even docked it), which worked fine after lots of strutting. It maxed out at 756 parts, but the extra couple of Mk3-ers are causing a lot of trouble. Below are some picks of the beast - that last few being the successful 180 seater http://imgur.com/a/Zp6Qq#0 - - - Updated - - - Note to tg626, just read you message - deffo give that a go many thx!

Hi guys & many thanks in advance for your suggestions. I'm building a monsterous 212 seat "star-liner" using the the Mk3 16-seat cabin parts. There are 13 of these pups & some (one?) of them break(s) apart at the joints on landing, causing the thing to blow up rather spectacularly! It happens about 1 out of every 3 landings. The F3 log is useless as it doesn't tell me which one (or ones) are failing so I don't know where to strengthen the weak joints with struts. I dont want to put them on willy-nilly, because the lag is already pretty bad & too many more struts will make the game unplayable. (anyone else notice the joints on the Mk3 cabins appear quite weak - especially when attached to fuel-tanks). So, my question is, are there any mods, CFG/logfile hacks or other tricks that can help? Cheers! Malc